Election results discussion

Here are my reflections of the election results for my ballot.

Presidential Electors

I'm disappointed to see the way in which people vote and the talk of "wasting your vote" if you don't vote for a Democrat or Republican. In Louisiana, it was a given that Romney would win. Everyone who didn't support Romney had a FREE PASS to vote for anyone they actually agree with. I'm sure Obama has a large support here, sure, but I would have hoped people would look at what he's done (and not done) and research the other candidates a bit more. Sorry, but you've lost some of your civil liberties thanks to Obama. I'm disappointed nobody notices that or the amount of money spent on war. It's not "defense". It's "war". It's war to maintain control of other countries so that their policies will allow US corporations to have their way. I digress.

One last note on why it is important for people to vote third-party even though that candidate will not win: federal matching funds. You know that check box on your IRS income tax form to donate 3$ to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund? That money goes to those parties that received at least 5% of the popular vote in the previous presidential election. It's an attempt, though quite lame, at introducing more voices to the debate. Third-parties bring up issues ignored by two parties when those two parties agree. Very important, I can't stress that enough. (Something I just read: checking the box means the federal government receives 3 fewer dollars in tax revenue from you. Why haven't I been checking that box?)

U. S. Representative 6th Congressional District

Bill freakin' Cassidy got 79% of the vote and will end public radio and television. If you looked at the district map of Louisiana, you'd be all wtf like me too. The way they carved out the minority vote into a District 2, bizarrely following the Mississippi River from Baton Rouge to New Orleans and including black parts of EBR, guarantees extremist candidates. Sure, minorities will be guaranteed a District 2 representative, but it also means District 2 and District 6 candidates can be as crazy extreme as they want without catering to compromise.

Associate Justice Supreme Court, 5th Supreme Court District

There's going to be a run-off for this one (on Dec 8). It's pretty much a given that the white, blond, pro-life, pro-death, pro-gun, anti-gay, Christian Republican is going to win that one.

Public Service Commissioner, District 2

This is the state agency that regulates public utilities, railroads, and trucking. This position is considered by many as stepping stone for higher office, so you can expect to hear more about the winner in coming years. The winner: Scott Angelle, who collected the most money of all the candidates. Despite the conflict of interest, he received contributions from the utility companies the PSC regulates. My man, Forest Wright, did not. Hurray for politics and free choice.

Mayor-President Metro Council, City of Baton Rouge

I am blown away by the support Walker got from the suburbs. Oh, and it was only the suburbs. I don't know if you knew, but the suburbs are changing around the country. They're getting less white, so it'll be interesting to see that shift in coming elections. Not this one, though.

I can't help but notice from the map above that Central really doesn't like Kip Holden. I mean, the southeast part of the parish isn't that in love with him either, but Central really doesn't like him.

Councilman Metro District 10

There was a flyer on my doorstep yesterday, Election Day. At the top, it said, "Tara Wicker," so I thought it was something in support of her. But then I read it. It alleges, "Tara Wicker spent over 15,000[$] on Gasoline in a 6 month time period where she only reported 10,000[$] income on tax refunds for the past four years. The wicker clan has stolen from the church[,] business, community[,] as well as our kids". It closes with "Do you want this type of dishonesty representing your community?" No one is claiming credit. There's just a phone number: 225-315-6552.

Why I don't like the winner, Tara Wicker: primarily because of how she was quoted in that Metro Council meeting on relaxing the Sunday alcohol laws 2 weeks ago. "Wicker [said] she didn't want to make the debate a 'religious issue' but reminded council members that 'heaven does record everything so after this decision one day you'll have to stand before God' and justify the vote." She's a little crazy. And wants to be mayor.

City Constable City Court, City of Baton Rouge

I don't know. Reginald Brown seems like a genial guy. Whatever.

CA NO. 1 (Act 873 - SB 82) Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly

One of the most misleading questions I've ever seen. "Surely, you want to help the elderly. Who hates the elderly?" This is all about that Medicaid Trust Fund for the Elderly, a fund created by a loophole with tax payer money from the federal government before the Feds closed the loophole. As the Advocacy Center in New Orleans puts it, "Constitutional Amendment #1 does not protect seniors -- it protects the nursing home industry." Who knew? Nobody, because nobody did the research. It passed with 71% in favor.

This was a tough one. I did a lot of research on this one. Isn't there an amendment in the US Constitution about this? Yes. It's the second one. Why so high? I looked into that. Prepare for some American history. Before the US Constitution, there were the Articles of Confederation. They were heavy on states' rights and weak on federal/collective power. They went back to the drawing board and came up with a document that gave the Feds more power and the ability to raise an army and whatnot. The states wanted to make sure the Feds wouldn't march on in and take over, so the Second Amendment was written to make sure each state would keep the right of having a militia to defend against the Feds.

Is this still relevant? I say no. The Feds can kick your ass before you even knew it. The "right to bear arms" thing is now relegated to hunting -- can you bear arms against a rabbit? -- and self-defense. And I haven't even gotten to what this amendment is even about. It's not whether or not the Second Amendment will remain. It's about making it harder to say somebody shouldn't have a gun on them. I don't know, man. I feel there are a bunch of conflicting laws on this one. Plus, we're a bad example to the rest of the world by having such a love of guns, conflict, war, death, power. 73% voted in favor.

Nobody cares about this one, but this was a recommendation of the Commission on Streamlining Government. Since all the public retirement systems are so complex in the state, this gives people extra time to research how proposed legislation will affect things. I guess it's helpful. The public randomly agreed too. 64% voted in favor.

This one is silly. Somebody screwed up with the original amendment and didn't say that the property tax exemption can help surviving spouses who fell into this category before the original amendment was ok'd. So this amendment just says that all surviving spouses get the exemption. Sure, fine. No biggie. 74% of people felt patriotic by voting in favor.

Who could possibly stay awake to research something like this enough to make a good call? It affects cases on a state level even though they are just about always handled on the federal level. But it sounds good to say somebody convicted of a felony in relation to their civil job should lose their retirement. Screw those bastards, said 70%.

The way I see it, this was special-casing a town in a state constitution. The constitution is full of crap that doesn't need to be there. More should be in statutes and such that don't need voter approval for changes. Besides, New Iberia has other ways to do what they want. 58% said screw those nerds.

CA NO. 7 (Act 870 - HB 524) Provides filling appts/Vac. on Bds./Comm.

This really makes me think that people have no clue what they're voting on. This should have been 100% in favor. Well, I say that because I don't think voters are savvy enough to vote against it for the correct reason. The real reason to vote against this is because this shouldn't be in the constitution at all. The original constitutional amendment says there are exactly 7 districts of something or other in the state. But, oh crap, that number is now actually 6! Oh, dear. I guess we need to amend the constitution, but to do that, the voters have to vote on it. What the hell? People have to vote on whether there are 7 or 6 districts? Really? Only 61% voted for saying there are 6 districts and not 7. I'd love to know what those 39% think.

Apparently people want 3 small-print legal notices in the newspaper instead of just 2 when a special crime prevention district is going to be proposed. Even when I still read newspapers, I never noticed those things. Will another notice help anyone? Does this need to be in the state constitution? 56% said hell yes.

PW Metro Council 1.23 Mills - MC - 10 Yrs.

Poison trucks will continue to kill our dragonflies, lightning bugs, bats, and small children. 66% of voters like having to close their windows on nice, cool evenings because they hear the death pump coming down the street.

EBR Parish School District Local Option - Term Limits

I've changed my mind on term limits. I don't think there should be any. It's undemocratic to tell someone they can no longer vote for someone they like. Well, it doesn't matter what I think. 75% want term limits on EBRPSS board members.